An Overview of Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission
Potential Topics:
History
- Progressive Movement
- Rise of Corporations
Constitutional Questions
Checks and Balances
- Oral Argument
Due Process
- The Docket
Elections
- The Federal Election Commission
- Funding Elections
The Media
- Pay Per View
Interest Groups
- Citizens United
Impact on Future Elections
Carmen Galvan: History The impending Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v the Federal Election commission expected to significantly expand the role of the most powerful special interests in financing American elections. The Court appears poised to turn its back on more than 100 years of law and pave the way for the deepest pocket players to spend unlimited amounts of money on direct campaigns to elect or defeat federal candidates, adding to the enormous influence they already have within the political process. Such a dramatic decision would further reduce trust in government policy making and fundamentally undermine the strength of our democracy. It is hard to imagine how America faces the difficult challenges of the 21st Century like health care, climate change and the economy and achieves real progress when our elected representatives face enormous fundraising challenges and must depend increasingly on financial elites as they navigate complex electoral terrain. In Citizens United v. Election Commission, the Court held that the First Amendment guarantees all corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries on independently produced advertisements and communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates, and do so at any time. The 5-4 decision, which effectively struck down a 1997 federal law and other state laws aimed at limiting the influence of corporations in elections, will permit corporations to engage in the political process in ways that many of us have not seen in our lifetimes. The Court did, however, uphold disclosure requirements and left other prohibitions intact, so those corporations seeking to take advantage of their newly recognized constitutional rights are encouraged to seek guidance from attorneys with expertise in federal campaign finance laws to safely navigate them through the legal minefields that still exist. Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known by many as McCain-Feingold, federal law prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, in connection with certain qualified elections. Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced a 90-minute documentary about Hilary Clinton entitled Hillary the Movie. At the time Clinton was a candidate in the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential primary elections. In December 2007 Citizens United brought a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission alleging that McCain-Feingold’s ban on electioneering communications violated its free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The challenge subsequently led to one district court decision and two arguments before the Supreme Court. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether a ninety-minute video on demand about Hillary Clinton is subject to the financial restrictions and disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or whether the film qualifies for an exemption of either. The court will need to balance the interest in protecting free speech with that of protecting the public from corruption and improper influence over the election.
Nicholas Garza: History
This is a history of the American campaign funding reform prior to the Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission case. I will show you the highlights of health reform in American History.
Through out our history campaign funding has always been an issue. It was not until the 1970’s did real change come about. The Federal Election Campaign Act and the Federal Election Commission Act brought about historical change. This began the monitoring of the campaign expenditures and eventually began limiting contributions from individuals, corporations, and ext.
Significant action after the creation of the FECA did not happen again until 2001 with the creation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The BCRA was a mixed bag for those who wanted to remove the money from politics. It eliminated all soft money donations to the national party committees, but it also doubled the contribution limit of hard money, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election cycle, with a built-in increase for inflation. In addition, the bill aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations by banning the use of corporate or union money to pay for "electioneering communications," a term defined as broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election. This provision of McCain-Feingold, sponsored by Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Vermont Independent James Jeffords, as introduced applied only to for-profit corporations, but was extended to incorporate non-profit issue organizations, such as the Environmental Defense Fund or the National Rifle Association, as part of the "Wellstone Amendment," sponsored by Senator Paul Wellstone.
After the BCRA a couple of interesting cases came about, but nothing significant. The next piece of history is the Citizens United case which concludes the history.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States
Whitney Hoffpauir: What is the FEC
What is the FEC? The Federal Election Commission (FEC) was created by congress in 1975 to administer and enforce the Federal Elections Campaign Act. This is the commission that governs the funding and financing of the federal elections. Some of the Federal Election Commission main duties is to disclose campaign funding information, and to enforce the law such as the limits on the contribution. This group also oversees the public funding of the Presidential elections. The commission is composed of six commissioners, no more than three can represent the same political party, and they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. These six commissioners are chosen from the amount of experience, honesty, and character. The Commissioners serve full time and are responsible for administering and enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act. Normally they meet twice a week, once in closed session to discuss matters that must remain confidential, and once in a meeting open to the public. At these meetings, they establish policy and vote on significant legal and administrative matters. The public funding programs is put into place to reduce the role of large private contributions in the Presidential elections. If a candidates running in an election raises more than $5,000 must file a statement of candidacy form authorizing the FEC to raise and spend money on your behalf. Ten days after you do this you must file a statement of organization form. Thereafter your committee must comply with the FEC regulations and account for all spending. The candidate or their committee would then Secretary of State to get their name on the ballot. To qualify for public funding, a Presidential candidates or a party convention committee must agree to accept the money from the FEC and use if only for the purpose of the campaign and convention related expenses. They must also abide by the laws the FEC has put in place for limiting their spending. Keeping records of these expenses is a way the FEC will keep track of the spending. If you have ever filled taxes you should notice on the federal income tax form a box that you can check that reads “The $3 Tax check off” This is where the funding program raised the money to contribute to the funds available to candidates. If there is a shortage in the funds and there is not enough to cover the cost the Secretary of the Treasury distributes the remaining of the funds to the candidates and committees. It is the law to give the first to party nominating conventions, then to general elections and lastly to the primary. Individuals like you and I can also contribute to elections. One person can give up to $2,400 to a candidates or their committee. If they choose to contribute to the program on a national level they can contribute up to $30,400 towards any candidate or their committee. The National Party Committee may not give more than $42,500 to Senate candidates. The State, local and district party my only give up to $5,000. There are other ways you can support your candidate that will be considered as a contribution. For example you can volunteer your time at voter drives or offer your time and skills to the campaign. The FEC is in place to control funding for elections and to control who contributes.
Jacob Jordan: Constitutional Questions
Garrett Lange: Interest Groups When many people think about political parties, or an upcoming election, they think red vs. blue; The Republicans vs. The Democrats. Although this is the most obvious debate, there are many underlying factors that influence what happens on the surface. One of the more important factors of political debate is interest groups. Interest groups are defined as “a group of people drawn or acting together in support of a common interest or to voice a common concern.” It is basically a mini political party based on the belief of one topic rather than politics as a whole.
Interest groups can really effect elections because candidates will try to persuade these interest groups that they follow the same beliefs on that topic, so they can get there vote. Interest groups are very important to “win over” because it isn’t just one vote, it’s as many votes as there are eligible voting citizens in that political party. Interest groups can cover a variety of topics such as public interest, foreign policy, ethnic, religious & racial groups. Interest groups have also taken place in lobbying, which is “any activity aimed at influencing public officials, especially legislators, and the policies they enact.” They also use mass mailings and advertising campaigns to spread what their group is about, and hope to gain members.
Sources: http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_burns_govbrief_5/0,7874,770274-,00.html http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interest+groups
Tawonda Nelson: Media Involvement Citizens United V Federal Election Commission
The Supreme Court issued a long awaited ruling in the Citizens United V FEC, the case about Hilary the movie that dedicated whether limitations upon corporate financing of Political advertising impermissibly infringed upon the First Amendment rights of those corporations.
The 5-4 decisions upheld the revelation and disclaimers portions of the campaign finance law for corporate financed “electioneering communications” but struck down on First Amendment grounds the limits on use of corporate coffers funds to economics such communiqué. Thursday the Supreme Court formally rules that corporations profit and nonprofit could not be proscribed from expenditure liberally on what can precisely be described as both speech and misinformation in waning days of federal election.
The resolution turns on an already overly money influenced system into a veritable free for all of corporate and vested interests propaganda. It confuses corporations with individuals. If confuses the notion of the Bill of Rights, written as an complete check upon the power of government over the basic, unchallengeable rights of individuals in a free society, as an instrument of government constraint upon corporate power and control. That confuses the notion of free speech expressions with the notion of corporate money spending where the speech is no longer limited by abilities or points of both speakers and their number, but by the amount of money that has been accumulated itself.
There are some interesting side developments to this ruling, such as the concept that foreign companies or foreign governments maybe able to spend freely in political advertisements but the example that continues to be flaunted is the idea that a corporation, if they want to take down a meticulous elected bureaucrat such as a congressman they will spend millions in campaign advertisements near the end of an election to swing the population to vote against the applicant. Some have even suggested a corporation would buy every obtainable spot of advertising on a network for a week, if only for the psychological effect it would have on other politicians not to vote on bills that disfavor that corporation or special interest. In the days of seven television channels, buying out every spot on a network could certainly have decided the outcome of race, but in a world where there are millions of websites, thousands of television channels, satellite and terrestrial radio channels I some how find it hard to believe that such roadblock of media buy on a precise channel would make that much of a dissimilarity. In fact, with all the cash spent on health care TV ads and the psychological result it had on the reporting of the debate. The reality was that the polls on health care reform nearly the same all through these ad campaigns, and on specific issues opinions hadn’t changed at all. It was only after the democrats were unable to get their votes and watered down the bill to importance did the numbers start to considerably change.
It is hard to predict how this will impact future cases in years to come. While I favor a robust First Amendment as a general rule, I personally believe that sensible campaign finance boundaries isn’t a bad idea and could be enacted without impermissibly restriction First Amendment rights. It is hard to argue that the influence of money in politics can get much worse that it is right now. At least the rise of individuals making small donations over the internet has leveled the playing field a bit from where it was when McCain-Feingold was passed and that trend is likely to continue.
Michael Nemitz: Impact on Future Elections (a concentrated rough draft)
Almost every political machine is run by money. A large portion of funding for governmental elections comes from donations of the average citizen and businesses. A previous case allows large businesses to donate an unlimited amount under the first amendment; whereas, the average citizen is only allowed to donate a small amount. Near the time of the 2008 election Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, tried to post a “documentary” about Hillary Clinton on PayPerView. The Federal Election Commission, called the film unconstitutional because the company was not only campaigning for her, but was also investing a lot of money into the film. Citizens United pushed the envelope and claimed that all businesses have the same rights as a person and should be able to contribute, by campaigning separately, as long as their not in bed with a political party. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. Now a runner in an election who wins the favor of a large company will have all the necessary funding to create an empire of publicity. We are not to far away from a “Walmart-President”. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
Maria Ortiz: Relevant Legislation “RELEVANT LEGISLATION” The 5-4 decision made by the Supreme Court on the case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission of 2010- that establishes the fact that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections CANNOT be limited under the first amendment- has produced a huge impact on congress and the laws made by congress along with pending cases dealing with this same issue. There are 24 states that have laws prohibiting the independent expenditures by unions and corporations. This ruling will severely affect these 24 states. “It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. The decition overrules the Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case of 1990 and partially overrules the McConnell vs. FEC of 2003. Senator Charles E. Schumer from New York along with the Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland “outlined legislation aimed at undoing the decision”. In a report made by Erin Miller, we find that this decision greatly enriches the content of the first amendment which establishes ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, OR OF THE PRESS, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''. Nonetheless it also suppresses previous cases where limitations were established on the amount of currency expend on political campaigns by the Roberts Court. The Citizens United vs. FEC case “has left wealthy individuals free to make independent expenditures in unlimited amounts advocating or opposing the election of identified candidates, state or federal”- Erin wrote. Because shareholders could “wastefully” expend their money on election campaigns causing deficit in economy by reduced commerce due to the decrease in advanced corporation’s interest, congress could legitimately act under the Commerce Clause to increase the shareholder’s efficacy at ensuring their investments. This issue could challenge congress’s power.
In a report made by David D. Kirkpatrick, Senator Schumer and Representative Hollen express their desire for the measure to be enacted in time to limit the impact of the court’s decision in the case before the fall campaigns. “Otherwise the court will have predetermined the winner of the midterm elections”, Senator Schumer said in this report. Because corporations will expend massive amounts of money on political campaigns they will pre-establish the winner. Senator Schumer’s argument is supported by Senator John McCain whose spokeswoman said that he still believes that it is the people who should speak and not the corporations in choosing their leaders”. The campaigns (in my opinion) minimizes the peoples own argument on choosing their representatives. Especially if there is a lack of knowledge on politics, most people will be drawn towards the candidate with greater advertisement practices. “But the court has spoken” Senator McCain spokeswoman said in Kirkpatrick’s report. There are several proposals upholding populist appeals on opposing the court’s decision. In order to pass any of these proposals at least one republican senator has to vote in favor of it, however five republican senators had voted in favor of the ruling which makes any proposals almost difficult to pass. "24 States' Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling" "What Should Congress Do About Citizens United? An analysis of the ruling and a possible legislative response" "Democrats Try to Rebuild Campaign-Spending Barriers"
[[javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/23/us/politics/23states_map.html', '570_717', 'width=570,height=717,location=no,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')|The Ruling’s Impact on States]]
Bradley Rodriguez: Background of the Case Recently there has been controversy surrounding a rather interesting Supreme Court case. This case is the Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. Both sides had good arguments yet the FEC won the case in the end. Yet it raises some interesting questions and points. One of those questions is; was the film shown by the Citizens United group protected under the First Amendment or did it violate the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?
The background of this case is simple yet at the same time is hard to answer. Citizens United is a non-profit organization that wanted to make a critical video pertaining to Hilary Clinton. This video was entitled Hilary: The Movie and was to be shown on DirecTV. However, the FEC thought this was in violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 under the court ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that “electioneering communications” 30 days before a primary restricted. Citizens United countered stating that the movie was “fact based and non-partisan.” The lower courts determined the movie had no other purpose than to discredit Mrs. Clinton.
On August 18, 2008 the Supreme Court docketed the case to hear the oral arguments on March 24, 2009. FEC shot off with the argument from the Supreme Court case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. In the Austin case it was made clear that the government has the power to ban any book that, even if it contained even one sentence, advocated the election or defeat of any candidate and was published or distributed by a corporation or union. Citizens United was then asked to address the question; “For the disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the part of McConnell v. FEC which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?” In an interesting spin Citizens United abandoned its facial challenge and both parties agreeing to dismissal.
In the end it was deemed that the movie was restricted by BCRA sections 201 and 311 and upheld that the section 203 extension of section 441 which states the restriction on corporate funding. (Needs more work)
Ronald Vavra: Citizens United
Citizens United was founded in 1988 by Floyd Brown. Floyd Brown is a conservative activist who belivies that government should not intrude in the lives of everyday citizens. He is quoted in saying “I have a sense of what connects with people like me. We're not culturally Republicans. We're not libertarians. We're not neo-conservatives or former liberals. We're just old-fashioned, blue-collar social conservatives. These are people who couldn't care less about politics; want to be left alone by government, but if their country calls for them to fight abroad, will. You win elections by cultivating people like me”. He came from a strong democratic family and holds a bachelors degree in economics from the University of Washington. Brown-organized campaigns have been studied for their effectiveness; these include the effort to secure the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas and the campaigns against Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton. Produced a commercial against Dukakis call “Willie Horton”. Willie Horton was a felon who was serving a life sentence for murder. At this time Massachusetts had a “Weekend furlough” for criminals. During one of these furloughs he didn’t return and assaulted and raped a woman. The ad was condemned and considered racist by many because William Hortan was an African-American.( The commercial showed a mug shot of Hortan and the words saying “every suburban mother’s worst fear”.) He stepped down as president of Citizens United 2000 and joined the board of directors.
David Bossie took over as president and chairman in 2000 and under his direction produced many pro-conservative movies. The most noted was “Hillary: the Movie” which was scheduled to be released right before the Democratic primaries in January 2008. The Federal Election Commission barred the showing of the movie and the case was finally settled with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United. David Bossie supports conservative causes even when it conflicts with the Republican Party. The group produced and aired “on the Fox Channel’ an advertisement about liberal legislative actions taken by John McCain. In October of 2006 there was an apparent cover up by the GOP of inappropriate communications between Congressman Mark Foley and teenage pages. Bossie lead the charge to expose the cover up and called on the resignation of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. www.citizensunited.orghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Unitedhttp://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Bossie
An Overview of Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission
Potential Topics:
History
- Progressive Movement
- Rise of Corporations
Constitutional Questions
Checks and Balances
- Oral Argument
Due Process
- The Docket
Elections
- The Federal Election Commission
- Funding Elections
The Media
- Pay Per View
Interest Groups
- Citizens United
Impact on Future Elections
Relevant Blog Posts: **click here**.
Links:
- The Docket from the Supreme Court.
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - ScotusWiki
- Oyez Project: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- The Decisions.
Carmen Galvan: History The impending Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v the Federal Election commission expected to significantly expand the role of the most powerful special interests in financing American elections. The Court appears poised to turn its back on more than 100 years of law and pave the way for the deepest pocket players to spend unlimited amounts of money on direct campaigns to elect or defeat federal candidates, adding to the enormous influence they already have within the political process. Such a dramatic decision would further reduce trust in government policy making and fundamentally undermine the strength of our democracy. It is hard to imagine how America faces the difficult challenges of the 21st Century like health care, climate change and the economy and achieves real progress when our elected representatives face enormous fundraising challenges and must depend increasingly on financial elites as they navigate complex electoral terrain.
In Citizens United v. Election Commission, the Court held that the First Amendment guarantees all corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries on independently produced advertisements and communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates, and do so at any time. The 5-4 decision, which effectively struck down a 1997 federal law and other state laws aimed at limiting the influence of corporations in elections, will permit corporations to engage in the political process in ways that many of us have not seen in our lifetimes. The Court did, however, uphold disclosure requirements and left other prohibitions intact, so those corporations seeking to take advantage of their newly recognized constitutional rights are encouraged to seek guidance from attorneys with expertise in federal campaign finance laws to safely navigate them through the legal minefields that still exist. Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known by many as McCain-Feingold, federal law prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, in connection with certain qualified elections. Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced a 90-minute documentary about Hilary Clinton entitled Hillary the Movie. At the time Clinton was a candidate in the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential primary elections. In December 2007 Citizens United brought a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission alleging that McCain-Feingold’s ban on electioneering communications violated its free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The challenge subsequently led to one district court decision and two arguments before the Supreme Court. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether a ninety-minute video on demand about Hillary Clinton is subject to the financial restrictions and disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or whether the film qualifies for an exemption of either. The court will need to balance the interest in protecting free speech with that of protecting the public from corruption and improper influence over the election.
Nicholas Garza: History
This is a history of the American campaign funding reform prior to the Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission case. I will show you the highlights of health reform in American History.
Through out our history campaign funding has always been an issue. It was not until the 1970’s did real change come about. The Federal Election Campaign Act and the Federal Election Commission Act brought about historical change. This began the monitoring of the campaign expenditures and eventually began limiting contributions from individuals, corporations, and ext.
Significant action after the creation of the FECA did not happen again until 2001 with the creation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The BCRA was a mixed bag for those who wanted to remove the money from politics. It eliminated all soft money donations to the national party committees, but it also doubled the contribution limit of hard money, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election cycle, with a built-in increase for inflation. In addition, the bill aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations by banning the use of corporate or union money to pay for "electioneering communications," a term defined as broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election. This provision of McCain-Feingold, sponsored by Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Vermont Independent James Jeffords, as introduced applied only to for-profit corporations, but was extended to incorporate non-profit issue organizations, such as the Environmental Defense Fund or the National Rifle Association, as part of the "Wellstone Amendment," sponsored by Senator Paul Wellstone.
After the BCRA a couple of interesting cases came about, but nothing significant. The next piece of history is the Citizens United case which concludes the history.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States
Whitney Hoffpauir: What is the FEC
What is the FEC?
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) was created by congress in 1975 to administer and enforce the Federal Elections Campaign Act. This is the commission that governs the funding and financing of the federal elections. Some of the Federal Election Commission main duties is to disclose campaign funding information, and to enforce the law such as the limits on the contribution. This group also oversees the public funding of the Presidential elections. The commission is composed of six commissioners, no more than three can represent the same political party, and they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. These six commissioners are chosen from the amount of experience, honesty, and character. The Commissioners serve full time and are responsible for administering and enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act. Normally they meet twice a week, once in closed session to discuss matters that must remain confidential, and once in a meeting open to the public. At these meetings, they establish policy and vote on significant legal and administrative matters. The public funding programs is put into place to reduce the role of large private contributions in the Presidential elections. If a candidates running in an election raises more than $5,000 must file a statement of candidacy form authorizing the FEC to raise and spend money on your behalf. Ten days after you do this you must file a statement of organization form. Thereafter your committee must comply with the FEC regulations and account for all spending. The candidate or their committee would then Secretary of State to get their name on the ballot. To qualify for public funding, a Presidential candidates or a party convention committee must agree to accept the money from the FEC and use if only for the purpose of the campaign and convention related expenses. They must also abide by the laws the FEC has put in place for limiting their spending. Keeping records of these expenses is a way the FEC will keep track of the spending. If you have ever filled taxes you should notice on the federal income tax form a box that you can check that reads “The $3 Tax check off” This is where the funding program raised the money to contribute to the funds available to candidates. If there is a shortage in the funds and there is not enough to cover the cost the Secretary of the Treasury distributes the remaining of the funds to the candidates and committees. It is the law to give the first to party nominating conventions, then to general elections and lastly to the primary. Individuals like you and I can also contribute to elections. One person can give up to $2,400 to a candidates or their committee. If they choose to contribute to the program on a national level they can contribute up to $30,400 towards any candidate or their committee. The National Party Committee may not give more than $42,500 to Senate candidates. The State, local and district party my only give up to $5,000. There are other ways you can support your candidate that will be considered as a contribution. For example you can volunteer your time at voter drives or offer your time and skills to the campaign. The FEC is in place to control funding for elections and to control who contributes.
Jacob Jordan: Constitutional Questions
Garrett Lange: Interest Groups
When many people think about political parties, or an upcoming election, they think red vs. blue; The Republicans vs. The Democrats. Although this is the most obvious debate, there are many underlying factors that influence what happens on the surface. One of the more important factors of political debate is interest groups. Interest groups are defined as “a group of people drawn or acting together in support of a common interest or to voice a common concern.” It is basically a mini political party based on the belief of one topic rather than politics as a whole.
Interest groups can really effect elections because candidates will try to persuade these interest groups that they follow the same beliefs on that topic, so they can get there vote. Interest groups are very important to “win over” because it isn’t just one vote, it’s as many votes as there are eligible voting citizens in that political party. Interest groups can cover a variety of topics such as public interest, foreign policy, ethnic, religious & racial groups. Interest groups have also taken place in lobbying, which is “any activity aimed at influencing public officials, especially legislators, and the policies they enact.” They also use mass mailings and advertising campaigns to spread what their group is about, and hope to gain members.
Sources:
http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_burns_govbrief_5/0,7874,770274-,00.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interest+groups
Tawonda Nelson: Media Involvement
Citizens United V Federal Election Commission
The Supreme Court issued a long awaited ruling in the Citizens United V FEC, the case about Hilary the movie that dedicated whether limitations upon corporate financing of Political advertising impermissibly infringed upon the First Amendment rights of those corporations.
The 5-4 decisions upheld the revelation and disclaimers portions of the campaign finance law for corporate financed “electioneering communications” but struck down on First Amendment grounds the limits on use of corporate coffers funds to economics such communiqué. Thursday the Supreme Court formally rules that corporations profit and nonprofit could not be proscribed from expenditure liberally on what can precisely be described as both speech and misinformation in waning days of federal election.
The resolution turns on an already overly money influenced system into a veritable free for all of corporate and vested interests propaganda. It confuses corporations with individuals. If confuses the notion of the Bill of Rights, written as an complete check upon the power of government over the basic, unchallengeable rights of individuals in a free society, as an instrument of government constraint upon corporate power and control. That confuses the notion of free speech expressions with the notion of corporate money spending where the speech is no longer limited by abilities or points of both speakers and their number, but by the amount of money that has been accumulated itself.
There are some interesting side developments to this ruling, such as the concept that foreign companies or foreign governments maybe able to spend freely in political advertisements but the example that continues to be flaunted is the idea that a corporation, if they want to take down a meticulous elected bureaucrat such as a congressman they will spend millions in campaign advertisements near the end of an election to swing the population to vote against the applicant. Some have even suggested a corporation would buy every obtainable spot of advertising on a network for a week, if only for the psychological effect it would have on other politicians not to vote on bills that disfavor that corporation or special interest. In the days of seven television channels, buying out every spot on a network could certainly have decided the outcome of race, but in a world where there are millions of websites, thousands of television channels, satellite and terrestrial radio channels I some how find it hard to believe that such roadblock of media buy on a precise channel would make that much of a dissimilarity. In fact, with all the cash spent on health care TV ads and the psychological result it had on the reporting of the debate. The reality was that the polls on health care reform nearly the same all through these ad campaigns, and on specific issues opinions hadn’t changed at all. It was only after the democrats were unable to get their votes and watered down the bill to importance did the numbers start to considerably change.
It is hard to predict how this will impact future cases in years to come. While I favor a robust First Amendment as a general rule, I personally believe that sensible campaign finance boundaries isn’t a bad idea and could be enacted without impermissibly restriction First Amendment rights. It is hard to argue that the influence of money in politics can get much worse that it is right now. At least the rise of individuals making small donations over the internet has leveled the playing field a bit from where it was when McCain-Feingold was passed and that trend is likely to continue.
Michael Nemitz: Impact on Future Elections (a concentrated rough draft)
Almost every political machine is run by money. A large portion of funding for governmental elections comes from donations of the average citizen and businesses. A previous case allows large businesses to donate an unlimited amount under the first amendment; whereas, the average citizen is only allowed to donate a small amount. Near the time of the 2008 election Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, tried to post a “documentary” about Hillary Clinton on PayPerView. The Federal Election Commission, called the film unconstitutional because the company was not only campaigning for her, but was also investing a lot of money into the film. Citizens United pushed the envelope and claimed that all businesses have the same rights as a person and should be able to contribute, by campaigning separately, as long as their not in bed with a political party. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. Now a runner in an election who wins the favor of a large company will have all the necessary funding to create an empire of publicity. We are not to far away from a “Walmart-President”.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
Maria Ortiz: Relevant Legislation
“RELEVANT LEGISLATION”
The 5-4 decision made by the Supreme Court on the case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission of 2010- that establishes the fact that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections CANNOT be limited under the first amendment- has produced a huge impact on congress and the laws made by congress along with pending cases dealing with this same issue. There are 24 states that have laws prohibiting the independent expenditures by unions and corporations. This ruling will severely affect these 24 states. “It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. The decition overrules the Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case of 1990 and partially overrules the McConnell vs. FEC of 2003. Senator Charles E. Schumer from New York along with the Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland “outlined legislation aimed at undoing the decision”. In a report made by Erin Miller, we find that this decision greatly enriches the content of the first amendment which establishes ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, OR OF THE PRESS, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''. Nonetheless it also suppresses previous cases where limitations were established on the amount of currency expend on political campaigns by the Roberts Court. The Citizens United vs. FEC case “has left wealthy individuals free to make independent expenditures in unlimited amounts advocating or opposing the election of identified candidates, state or federal”- Erin wrote. Because shareholders could “wastefully” expend their money on election campaigns causing deficit in economy by reduced commerce due to the decrease in advanced corporation’s interest, congress could legitimately act under the Commerce Clause to increase the shareholder’s efficacy at ensuring their investments. This issue could challenge congress’s power.
In a report made by David D. Kirkpatrick, Senator Schumer and Representative Hollen express their desire for the measure to be enacted in time to limit the impact of the court’s decision in the case before the fall campaigns. “Otherwise the court will have predetermined the winner of the midterm elections”, Senator Schumer said in this report. Because corporations will expend massive amounts of money on political campaigns they will pre-establish the winner. Senator Schumer’s argument is supported by Senator John McCain whose spokeswoman said that he still believes that it is the people who should speak and not the corporations in choosing their leaders”. The campaigns (in my opinion) minimizes the peoples own argument on choosing their representatives. Especially if there is a lack of knowledge on politics, most people will be drawn towards the candidate with greater advertisement practices. “But the court has spoken” Senator McCain spokeswoman said in Kirkpatrick’s report. There are several proposals upholding populist appeals on opposing the court’s decision. In order to pass any of these proposals at least one republican senator has to vote in favor of it, however five republican senators had voted in favor of the ruling which makes any proposals almost difficult to pass.
"24 States' Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling"
"What Should Congress Do About Citizens United? An analysis of the ruling and a possible legislative response"
"Democrats Try to Rebuild Campaign-Spending Barriers"
[[javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/23/us/politics/23states_map.html', '570_717', 'width=570,height=717,location=no,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')|The Ruling’s Impact on States]]
Bradley Rodriguez: Background of the Case
Recently there has been controversy surrounding a rather interesting Supreme Court case. This case is the Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. Both sides had good arguments yet the FEC won the case in the end. Yet it raises some interesting questions and points. One of those questions is; was the film shown by the Citizens United group protected under the First Amendment or did it violate the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?
The background of this case is simple yet at the same time is hard to answer. Citizens United is a non-profit organization that wanted to make a critical video pertaining to Hilary Clinton. This video was entitled Hilary: The Movie and was to be shown on DirecTV. However, the FEC thought this was in violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 under the court ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that “electioneering communications” 30 days before a primary restricted. Citizens United countered stating that the movie was “fact based and non-partisan.” The lower courts determined the movie had no other purpose than to discredit Mrs. Clinton.
On August 18, 2008 the Supreme Court docketed the case to hear the oral arguments on March 24, 2009. FEC shot off with the argument from the Supreme Court case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. In the Austin case it was made clear that the government has the power to ban any book that, even if it contained even one sentence, advocated the election or defeat of any candidate and was published or distributed by a corporation or union. Citizens United was then asked to address the question; “For the disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the part of McConnell v. FEC which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?” In an interesting spin Citizens United abandoned its facial challenge and both parties agreeing to dismissal.
In the end it was deemed that the movie was restricted by BCRA sections 201 and 311 and upheld that the section 203 extension of section 441 which states the restriction on corporate funding. (Needs more work)
Ronald Vavra: Citizens United
Citizens United was founded in 1988 by Floyd Brown. Floyd Brown is a conservative activist who belivies that government should not intrude in the lives of everyday citizens. He is quoted in saying “I have a sense of what connects with people like me. We're not culturally Republicans. We're not libertarians. We're not neo-conservatives or former liberals. We're just old-fashioned, blue-collar social conservatives. These are people who couldn't care less about politics; want to be left alone by government, but if their country calls for them to fight abroad, will. You win elections by cultivating people like me”. He came from a strong democratic family and holds a bachelors degree in economics from the University of Washington. Brown-organized campaigns have been studied for their effectiveness; these include the effort to secure the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas and the campaigns against Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton. Produced a commercial against Dukakis call “Willie Horton”. Willie Horton was a felon who was serving a life sentence for murder. At this time Massachusetts had a “Weekend furlough” for criminals. During one of these furloughs he didn’t return and assaulted and raped a woman. The ad was condemned and considered racist by many because William Hortan was an African-American.( The commercial showed a mug shot of Hortan and the words saying “every suburban mother’s worst fear”.) He stepped down as president of Citizens United 2000 and joined the board of directors.
David Bossie took over as president and chairman in 2000 and under his direction produced many pro-conservative movies. The most noted was “Hillary: the Movie” which was scheduled to be released right before the Democratic primaries in January 2008. The Federal Election Commission barred the showing of the movie and the case was finally settled with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United. David Bossie supports conservative causes even when it conflicts with the Republican Party. The group produced and aired “on the Fox Channel’ an advertisement about liberal legislative actions taken by John McCain. In October of 2006 there was an apparent cover up by the GOP of inappropriate communications between Congressman Mark Foley and teenage pages. Bossie lead the charge to expose the cover up and called on the resignation of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. www.citizensunited.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Bossie